Search

Objective: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass several conditions that cause pain and impair function of the masticatory muscles (M-TMDs) and temporomandibular joints. There is a large interest among clinicians and researchers in the use of botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) as a treatment for M-TMD. However, due to the lack of consistent evidence regarding the efficacy as well as adverse events of BoNT-A, clinical decision making is challenging. Therefore, this umbrella review aimed to systematically assess systematic reviews (SRs) evaluating BoNT-A treatment effects on pain intensity, mandibular movements, and adverse events in patients with M-TMDs. Method: An electronic search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP to identify SRs investigating BoNT-A effects on M-TMDs, published from the inception of each database until 6 December 2023. The quality of evidence was rated according to the critical appraisal checklist developed by the umbrella review methodology working group. Only high-quality SRs were included. Results: In total, 18 SRs were included. BoNT-A was shown to be more effective than placebo to reduce pain intensity, but not compared to standard treatments. Additionally, BoNT-A was not superior to placebo or standard treatments regarding improvement of mandibular movements. BoNT-A was considered to have a higher risk for adverse events on muscle and bony tissue compared with other treatments. Conclusion: The synthesis in this umbrella review provides the highest level of evidence present. Taken together, there are indications of effectiveness of BoNT-A for treatment of M-TMDs, supported by moderate evidence. However, considering the risk of causing serious adverse events, treatment with BoNT-A is recommended to be the last treatment alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are common. They affect abilities for carrying out daily tasks and influence different psychological aspects. In addition to standard treatment, psychological treatments have been suggested. The aim was to investigate the effects of psychological treatments on patients with painful TMD in a short‐ and long‐term perspective. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting psychological interventions for TMD. Registered beforehand in PROSPERO (CRD42022320106). In total, 18 RCTs were included; six RCTs that could be used in the meta‐analysis, and all 18 RCTs were used in the narrative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias and certainty of evidence by GRADE. Results: The narrative synthesis indicates that psychological treatment options seem equivalent to standard treatment for painful TMD. The meta‐analysis showed that a combination of psychological treatment and standard treatment and manual treatment (very low‐quality evidence) are significantly better in pain reduction than just counselling and standard treatments of TMD. Conclusion: This study indicates that psychological treatments seem to reduce pain intensity in individuals with painful TMD, and that the effect seems to be equally good as standard treatment. However, a combination of psychological treatments and standard treatments seems to have an even better effect. This indicates that psychological treatments are promising as an additional treatment approach for painful TMDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) comprise a cluster of conditions with a wide range of etiological factors that causes pain and discomfort in the masticatory muscles (TMD-M) and temporomandibular joints (TMD-J). More than 50% of the patients with TMD report regular usage of drugs. However, there is still no consensus, nor is there any evidence-based support for clinicians when choosing between different drugs. Therefore, this systematic review, including a network meta-analysis (NMA), aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence and discuss the pharmacological treatment options available to treat painful TMD. Method: An electronic search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments for TMD-M and/or TMD-J, published until 6 April 2023. Since only 11 articles could be used for an NMA regarding TMD-M, a narrative synthesis was also performed for all 40 included RCTs. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: When it comes to TMD-M, evidence arises for wet needling therapies with BTX-A, granisetron, and PRP as well as muscle relaxants. For TMD-J, evidence points toward pharmacological treatment approaches including non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticosteriods (for inflammatory conditions) as well as hyaluronic acid and dextrose. Conclusions: The evidence clearly indicates that the pharmacological treatment approaches differ between TMD-M and TMD-J. Therefore, it is of great importance to first try to uncover each patient's individual and multifactorial etiology and then employ a multifaceted treatment strategy, including pharmacological treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]